Singleton v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-02893
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Singleton v. City of New York, Judge Swain found Singleton was not barred from fee-free filing but denied his request for counsel.
Aaron Singleton’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees, his request for a volunteer lawyer, and the further review of his amended complaint were affected. The order did not decide the merits of his claims.
What happened
Aaron Singleton, who was detained on Rikers Island, filed Singleton v. City of New York without a lawyer and sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had questioned whether three earlier dismissals barred him under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule.
The court determined that one earlier related proceeding did not count as a strike because it included a dismissal on grounds that do not qualify under that rule. The court said it would separately address Singleton’s fee-free filing request and review his amended complaint. It also considered his request for a court-appointed lawyer.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for counsel without prejudice, meaning Singleton may renew it later. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal; it did not decide whether the amended complaint was substantively sufficient.
The detailed version
- Singleton v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-02893
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 1, 2022
Background
Aaron Singleton filed this action without a lawyer while detained on Rikers Island. He sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, known as in forma pauperis, or IFP, status. The court had ordered him to explain why his request should not be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s rule barring a prisoner who has accumulated three qualifying dismissals from proceeding IFP unless an exception applies.
The court had identified three earlier proceedings as possible strikes. Singleton argued that the first did not qualify because it involved the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. After reviewing that proceeding, the court concluded it was not a strike. Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Escalera v. Samaritan Village, the court explained that an entire action must be dismissed on qualifying grounds to count as a strike, and that a dismissal based partly on qualifying grounds and partly on nonqualifying grounds does not count as a strike.
Other Motion
Singleton later filed an amended complaint and asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. In evaluating that request, the court considered the potential strength of the case, Singleton’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to investigate and present the case without one. The court said it was too early to evaluate the case’s merits.
Rulings
The court concluded that Singleton was not barred by Section 1915(g) from filing actions IFP and stated that it would issue a separate order addressing his IFP request. It also stated that it would review the amended complaint for substantive sufficiency and, if appropriate, reassign the case to a district judge under the Clerk’s Office procedures.
The court denied Singleton’s request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Singleton’s amended complaint ultimately stated a valid claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.